But as important as those feeling are, there is nothing in the rule book indicating we should use this as part of our judgement when calling Flagrant. Actions have consequences.
My immediate reaction to call Flagrant is because (and you nailed it to a T) I IMMEDIATELY thought the act was heinous and horrific and had no place on a wrestling mat. Again, you didnt have the benefit of seeing it live...so we will have a different perspective if you ONLY judge based on that video.
And again to clarify, because you continue to misrepresent the situation to support your judgement...only ONE OFFICIAL was in position to see the act, NOT TWO. There was only ONE SINGLE PERSON in that gym that had the ability to make that judgement. You describe the situation as if they polled the crowd and no one thought there was a problem.
My insistent reaction to call Flagrant is based on the PRIMARY DUTY of the official, which is to ensure the safety of the athletes.
As you SHOULD know, a knee strike to the head is an INCREDIBLY dangerous act. Beyond the obvious risk of concussion and TBI, a strike to crown of the head presents a legitimate risk of spinal injury.
As for the difference between UR and Flagrant...I believe there is a clear distinction, and I’ve presented a very clear reasoning as to why the rules should be read this way. You counter by saying UR acts dont necessarily involve action that isna wrestling move...yet give no examples.
Again, it is clear that EVERY action described in UR relates to situations that involve legal wrestling action made illegal by excessive aggressiveness//force. And EVERY action described under Flagrant are actions NOT A PART OF ANY LEGITIMATE WRESTLING MANUEVER.
Unlike most rules, not EVERY act can be described under the rule for Flagrant. Thus, the book gives guidance and examples, and depends on the referree to use sound judgement for actions not specifically described...
But you already know this.